Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect
November 04, 2019 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements.
The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes.
With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:
- The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
- The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
- A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
- Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure
January 28, 2015 — Neil Callanan and Richard Partington – Bloomberg
U.K. banks, which spent six years repairing their balance sheets after the 2008 property crash, want to advance more credit to homebuyers. Borrowers aren’t as enthusiastic.
Cheap funding costs and low default rates have made homebuyers attractive to lenders in recent years, boosting returns for companies such as Nationwide Building Society and Lloyds Banking Group Plc. (LLOY) Now, with demand for property cooling, they’re having to fight harder for business. Interest rates on the most popular mortgages fell to record lows in December, according to the Bank of England.
Mr. Callanan may be contacted at ncallanan@bloomberg.net; Mr. Partington may be contacted at rpartington@bloomberg.net
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan and Richard Partington, Bloomberg
SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
December 20, 2021 — The Surety & Fidelity Association of America
December 15, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry, commends the U.S. Senate and House for passing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2022, and including Section 877, which exempts the Miller Act from periodic indexing for inflation. SFAA would like to thank Miller Act exemption bill sponsors, Representatives Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Byron Donalds (R-FL), as well as Senators Robert Portman (R-OH), Gary Peters (D-MI) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), for their leadership and commitment on the passage of this bill.
Exempting the Miller Act from periodic indexing for inflation ensures essential payment protections remain in place for subcontractors, suppliers, and workers on all federal construction contracts subject to the Miller Act. The exemption also ensures performance protections for taxpayers will remain in place on federal construction contracts of $150,000 and more.
For over 80 years, the federal Miller Act has protected taxpayers against risk of loss by requiring payment and performance bonds on federal construction contracts. President Biden is expected to sign the NDAA into law in the coming days.
The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry. Based in Washington, D.C., SFAA works to promote the value of surety and fidelity bonding by proactively advocating on behalf of its members and stakeholders. The association’s more than 450 member companies write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. For more information visit www.surety.org. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)
April 15, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Court Appeal reversed a trial court judgment which found coverage in favor of the contractor based upon exclusion j(5). Dallas Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Calitex Corp., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2002 (Tex. Ct. App. March 3, 2015).
Turnkey Residential Group, Inc., was the contractor to construct a twelve-unit townhome complex in Dallas. The owner of the project was Calitex Corporation. Construction began on November 2006. The project was to be completed by Turnkey by October 27, 2007.
Calitex filed suit against Turnkey and some of its subcontractors in February 2008. Calitex alleged problems with Turnkey's work included: (1) the stone exterior was not properly treated and leaked, and some areas were left uncovered with stone; and (2) windows leaked. It was further alleged that the quality of materials, labor and craftsmanship did not meet the standards of the contract and resulted in damages. Turnkey submitted a notice of claim to its insurer, Dallas National Insurance Company (DNIC). Coverage was denied.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts
July 21, 2018 — David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
In Part I of this article, published in late April, we discussed the performance risk and time risk involved with construction and design contracts, and in Part II, we will cover cost risk and political risk.
Cost Risk
School budgets are limited for many reasons, and the construction budget is no exception. As a result, contracts should guard against unwarranted cost increases and claims. In the absence of a written change order signed by the appropriate officer, the contract should absolutely prohibit additional compensation for changes in the work. It should forbid claims for all events except those within the school authority’s sole control. Even for permitted claims, the contractor must provide written notice so that the authority might alleviate the problem and control its costs. To encourage the contractor to limit costs and claims, the contract could include a shared-savings clause, which grants an incentive payment for completion within the budget. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com
Milwaukee's 25-Story Ascent Stacks Up as Tall Timber Role Model
January 25, 2021 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
In January 2019, Preston Cole left his post as Commissioner of the Milwaukee Dept. of Neighborhood Services and became Secretary of Wisconsin’s Dept. of Natural Resources. It was a step up for the 25-year veteran of public service—a forester by profession—who as the city’s top building official had reformed DNS by fostering a developer-friendly environment.
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires
February 16, 2017 — Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages.
In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages.
Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract
October 18, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
How do you determine damages for a breach of a construction contract? If you are interested in pursing a breach of a construction contract action, this is something you NEED TO KNOW!
The recent Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Cano, Inc. v. Judet, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2083b (Fla. 4th DCA 201) explains:
Where a contractor breaches a construction contract, and the owner sues for breach of contract and the cost to complete, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost to perform the contract. See Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037, 1039-40 (Fla. 1982). In Grossman, the supreme court adopted subsection 346(1)(a) of the Restatement (First) of Contracts (1932), which it concluded was “designed to restore the injured party to the condition he would have been in if the contract had been performed.” Id. at 1039. In other words, the owner will obtain the benefit of his bargain [and this is known as benefit of the bargain damages]. But where there is a total breach of the contract as opposed to a partial breach, an injured party may elect to treat the contract as void and seek damages that will restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract or the party may seek the benefit of his bargain. See McCray v. Murray, 423 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
In Judet, an owner entered into a fixed price contract with a contractor to repair damage from a lightning strike. The contract amount was $300,000 payable in $30,000 installments. A few months after the contractor commenced performance, the owner terminated the contractor because the owner learned the contractor had not obtained required electrical and plumbing permits. At this time, the owner had paid the contractor $90,000. The contractor recorded a $40,000 lien for an amount it claimed it was owed and filed a lawsuit to foreclose its construction lien. The owner counter-sued the contractor to recover a claimed over-payment and a disgorgement of monies for unpermitted work. The owner was NOT claiming benefit of the bargain damages, but rather, damages for the contractor’s total breach “to restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com
